System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 05/05/2026 20:03 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110008 MP/H Rules/Histology--Vulva: How is histology coded for VIN III with focal invasion? See Discussion. Per SINQ 20000442, the histology for CIN III with microinvasion is coded to 8077 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] per the matrix system rules, with a behavior code of /3 [malignant]. Coding the histology to 8077/3 per the matrix principle causes IF25_3 and MorphICDO3_P1 edits to fail. Flagging the first error resolves any reporting issue. How is the MorphICDO3_P1 edit resolved? Assign 8076/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, microinvasive] for VIN III with focal invasion. This applies to all terminologies listed under 8077/2. The SINQ question from 2000 will be retired. 2011
20110103 MP/H Rules/Histology/Ambiguous terminology: Can synonyms of listed terms, such as "variety" for the list termed "type," be used to code a more specific histology? See Discussion. The list of terms denoting a more specific histology does not include "variety." During MP/H training sessions there was an emphasis placed on only using terms listed to code a more specific histology. However, the results of an audit indicated that because "variety" is a synonym for "type" it could be used to code a more specific histology. Are synonyms of listed terms to be used to code histology? No. Synonyms of listed words used in the MP/H rules (e.g., "variety" for the listed term "type") cannot be used to designate a more specific histology. 2011
20110090 MP/H Rules/Histology/Behavior--Ovary: How are these fields coded for a 20 cm borderline mucinous tumor with a 0.3 cm minor focus of intraepithelial carcinoma of the ovary that the pathologist stages as T1a?

According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8010/2 [intraepithelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007-2014. Borderline mucinous tumor is not reportable to SEER.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Other Sites Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, rule H1. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The only reportable histology in this case is intraepithelial carcinoma [8010/2].

2011
20100090 MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. 2010
20091098 MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a partial vulvectomy showing "vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III, basaloid type"? See Discussion. Is this VIN III (8077/2) or basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (8083 and change the behavior code from 3 to 2)? It seems that H4 and H6 both lead to 8083.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign 8077/2 [Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] for VIN III diagnoses, regardless of the type. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours (page 319), "VIN is predominately of the warty or basaloid types...."

Use the multiple tumors module to determine the histology code for VIN. Rule H21 applies.

 2009
20071007 MP/H Rules/Histology: In the absence of a tissue diagnosis, should the histology field be coded based on the findings of a suspicious cytology or a CT scan that clinically confirmed the diagnosis? See Discussion. Cytology (brushings at ERCP) which are highly suspicious of adenocarcinoma. A CT of the abdomen performed the next day shows a mass, most likely Klatskin tumor. Can the histology be coded to Klatskin tumor [8162/3] based on the CT findings?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology to 8162/3 [Klatskin tumor] using the histology from the CT. This case is confirmed clinically based on the CT. It cannot be accessioned based on suspicious cytology.

Rule H8 in the 2007 Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites provides instructions for coding histology when the pathology report and cytology report are not available.

 2007
20110079 MP/H Rules/Histology: In the MP/H Manual, where is the documentation indicating "focal" is not a term that can be used to code histology? See Discussion. Example: neuroendocrine carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation. For the purposes of the MP/H rules, the term "focal" is not used to indicate a more specific histology. Terms that may be used to indicate a more specific histology are listed in the relevant histology rules. For example, see Breast histology rule H3. Notice the terms listed in the note for this rule are "type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, with ___ differentiation, architecture or pattern." The term "focal" is not included. This concept will be clarified in future revisions to MP/H rules. 2011
20100061 MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." 2010
20091051 MP/H Rules/HistologyCorpus Uteri: How should histology be coded for a "carcinosarcoma with high grade sarcomatous component within a polyp, with greater component of endometrioid carcinoma and foci papillary serous carcinoma within polyp"? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] according to rule H17. Rule H12 does not apply since the final diagnosis is not "adenocarcinoma." 2009
20091116 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as "recurrent at the anastomotic junction" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion.

MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.

Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.

However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.

Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.

One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term "recurrent" in this case is not synonymous with "metastatic." Apply the MP/H rules. 2009